17: OWI Research Considerations

A Need for Research into OWI

The Internet has had a profound impact across educational contexts with the teaching and learning of writing among the most primary. There are innovative and exciting writing models that are linked inextricably to the online modalities that power them. The education landscape is marked by rapid growth and expansion of online technologies that are used to construct and deliver education and instruction—including writing instruction.

Systematic and broad scale national and international data specifically targeting OWI trends do not exist. Overall, however, US higher education has seen considerable enduring growth with online education. For example, the National Center for Education reported that over 200 fully accredited online higher education institutions currently operate in the United States (Radford, 2011)—these institutions all provide high-enrollment, core courses that include composition. Further, Eduventures—a leading research and consulting firm for higher education institutions—estimated that in the fall of 2010, 2.78 million students enrolled in fully online programs. This number represents 14% of all higher education enrollments (Aslanian & Clinefelter, 2012). Along these lines, 77% of all four-year university presidents reported that their institutions offered some type of online or hybrid classes (Parker, Lendard, & Moore, 2011). Worldwide trends are similar; both online programs and enrolled students are increasing yearly. Indeed, even students in traditional onsite courses can expect to access some of their course materials and/or communicative experiences in online settings such as an institution’s LMS or, minimally, email.

These statistics reflect online learning overall. As this book demonstrates, when we consider OWI alone, there is much that remains unknown. Undoubtedly, there is much to learn about how the changing digital landscape affects writing instruction in online settings. Among a wide variety of possible concerns are issues of accessibility, mobile technologies, and experimental learning formats. We provide the following examples to ground the exigency of developing appropriately sound and potentially helpful OWI research.

Accessibility, for instance, received primary importance in A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for OWI (CCCC OWI Committee, 2013). OWI Principle 1 concerned the need for inclusivity and accessibility in OWI for all students and teachers. Where inclusivity has been more or less retrofitted (Oswal & Hewett, 2013) to online settings in the past, it is provided a paramount position in this position statement. With OWI Principle 1, it becomes clear that every activity in an OWI setting and the technology choices for those activities should be determined with accessibility as a priority for both students and teachers (pp. 7-11). Student audiences, for example, are masked in online settings, making it difficult to know whether they are physically disabled, intellectually challenged, struggling with multilingual needs, and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged. Some students may have none of these specific problems but may be poor or slow readers with challenges in online educational settings (Hewett, 2015a). Without self-disclosure of such vital concerns, teachers may be unaware of particular student needs yet somewhat aware of their struggles as revealed in the student’s writing. Indeed, given a potential for difficulties in handling the increased literacy load of a common OWC (Griffin & Minter, 2013), all students might be considered somewhat disadvantaged in OWI settings (Hewett, 2015a). Too little research has been produced to assist with understanding this phenomenon although scholars are beginning to address this stark need (see, for example, Meloncon, 2013). Even though Chapters 8, 9, and 10 address many access and inclusivity concerns, it is useful to consider here some of the most pressing areas to be researched:

• Regarding teacher/tutor training for accessibility:
  • What kinds of training, if any at all, do teachers and professional and peer tutors currently receive to provide universally accessible and inclusive OWI?
  • What training, if any, from different college disciplines or other online systems would support writing teachers/tutors in providing more accessible and inclusive OWI?
  • What attitudes do teachers/tutors need to acknowledge, address, and/or overcome to develop more accessible and inclusive OWI?
• Regarding self-disclosure:
  • How many students self-disclose some type of disability before, during, or after their OWCs? What types of disabilities do student disclose?
  • Under what situations (e.g., pre-course preparatory materials or general encouragement from teachers) do students tend to self-disclose accessibility needs for OWCs?
  • Given legal restrictions from the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the ADA, how can students be provided helpful guidance about self-disclosure?
  • What sort of research partnerships are possible between OWI programs and campus disability services to learn about disabled students’ technological needs, learning styles, and other academic preferences?
  • How, if at all, do teachers (or tutors) modify their work with online writing students to meet access needs?
• Regarding students who may not previously have been considered as needing particular access:
  • What kinds of accessibility and/or inclusivity needs do multilingual students have in an OWC?
  • Under what conditions should multilingual students receive accessibility assistance in an OWC or with an online tutor?
  • What do we know about the accessibility of online tutoring systems for students with disabilities?
  • What are the socioeconomic factors that teachers/tutors must consider when providing accessibility OWI for students?
  • What are the socioeconomic factors that administrators must consider when preparing OWI teachers and tutors?

In the field of writing studies, there is a wealth of scholarship about multilingual student writers as well as students whose literacy performances are affected by their socioeconomic conditions. But there is a dearth of scholarship about how these student populations perform in OWI contexts.

As a second example of the need for continued OWI research, the trend of using mobile devices and cell phone technology for OWI is among the changes in digital technologies, which is discussed in Chapter 16 of this book. Using such technology in writing courses undoubtedly will have an impact on writing instruction and student competency (Ehmann, 2012) as well as on student reading literacy (Hewett, 2015a). There is growing evidence to suggest that a growing population of students is using tablet and even mobile phone technology for educational purposes. Apple alone counts 1.5 million iPads in use by students in K-12 US schools (Kessler, 2012). In early October 2012, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster released survey results showing that iPhone ownership also is growing at a rapid rate. According to Munster’s findings, 34% of surveyed high school students now own an iPhone, and 40% said they planned to buy one in the next month (CourseSmart, 2012). A May 2012 survey released by CourseSmart estimated that 93% of university students own laptops, 57% own smartphones, and 22% own tablets (CourseSmart, 2012). As students become ever-more attached to their mobile technology, online learning opportunities via mobile devices undoubtedly will expand. A 2011 Pearson Foundation study on US students and tablets reported the following findings:

• Seventy percent of high school seniors and university students would like to own a tablet device.
• Twenty percent of college students and 7% of university-bound high school seniors planned to purchase one in the next six months.
• Sixty-nine percent of university-level students reported that they think tablet computing will change education in the future.
• Sixty-three percent of students surveyed reported that tablets can enhance education.
• Almost half of the surveyed students expect digital textbooks to replace paper textbooks within the next five years (p. 2).

In theory, there are some interesting opportunities for learner engagement with mobile devices and the development of writing skills. For example, students can easily and collaboratively share information and ideas with each other through this very social technology—as well as enjoy easy access to peer reviews. Research questions surrounding such mobile technology choices for OWI include:

• Regarding flipped classrooms:
  • Contemporary composition courses typically are taught in “flipped” manner—with lecture rejected for in-class practice and peer workshops—because it makes sense to have students perform the hands-on or direct engagement aspects of the learning process in the presence of the teaching professional. Given this scenario, how can mobile devices facilitate the flipped classroom?
  • Are mobile devices the best or just one of several tools for such activities?
  • What are their best uses in a writing instruction context?
  • How do these technologies enable or inhibit accessibility and inclusion?
• Regarding anywhere/anytime learning:
  • In what ways, if at all, do students actually use such mobile devices for educational writing experiences?
  • What is student satisfaction level with such uses?
  • In what ways, if at all, does the use of these devices hinder or support writing improvement from the teacher’s perspective? From the student’s perspective?
  • To what extent and in what ways do these technological tools promote learning and engage participants?
• Regarding writing conventions:
  • In what ways, if any, do students follow or reject traditional writing conventions, to include Standard Academic English, when they use mobile devices for educational writing experiences?
  • What kind of writing skills do students need and use for texting, tweeting, and other types of instant messaging modes that are twenty-first century skills necessary both in the work place and daily life?
  • How do (or can) writing teachers address and/or support such writing skills?
  • In what real contexts do the discourses of the academy and online discourse overlap, and how are these facilitated (or not) by mobile technology in writing course settings?

Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt conducted a US study from 2010 to 2011 on one of their mobile applications that teaches Algebra I and reported positive results. Although very small, this study is widely cited as evidence for the efficacy of mobile learning within the sciences (HMHEducation.com, 2012). Such a study for writing has yet to be published.

Another relatively recent movement that is gaining attention and points to the significant growth of online learning with potential impact on writing instruction is that of MOOCs. Targeting learners world-wide, MOOCs are an experimental form of online courses available to large audiences of learners through open Web access. MOOCs developed out of the open educational resources movement as “a response to the challenges faced by organizations and distributed disciplines in a time of information overload” (Cormier, 2010). According to Dave Cormier (2010), the most important feature of a MOOC is that it “builds on the active engagement of several hundred to several thousand ‘students’ who self-organize their participation according to learning goals, prior knowledge and skills, and common interests.” Structurally, MOOCs may be similar to some college-level programs. Typically, MOOCs do not offer the college credits that paying students at colleges and universities receive although some colleges have done so (Koller, 2012).

The CCCC OWI Committee’s A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for OWI currently lists MOOCs as an experimental use of educational technology and OWI Principle 6 suggested that they “should be subject to the same principles of pedagogical soundness, teacher/designer preparation, and oversight detailed in this document” (p. 16). A study of such experimental uses of educational technology has not yet been published for composition or writing-enhanced disciplinary courses, although data have been collected on the four institutions (i.e., Duke University, Georgia Technological Institute, San Jacinto Community College, The Ohio State University) that won Gates Fellowship Grants to establish MOOCs for writing courses. Questions for such research on MOOCs, adaptable to other experimental OWCs, might be:

• Regarding the philosophies driving contemporary composition:
  • In what ways, if at all, do MOOCs, support core writing studies philosophies?
  • In what ways do they not support core philosophies?
  • How, if at all, do writing MOOCs extend core writing studies philosophies and/or develop new strategies helpful to student writers?
  • The four writing MOOCs piloted in 2013 enrolled a large number of students from around the world. What potential does such global reach of MOOCs offer to writing studies pedagogy?
• Regarding accessibility, enrollment, retention, and persistence:
  • What student accessibility challenges exist surrounding OWI? How and to what extent can such challenges can be addressed?
  • What types of students most benefit from the MOOC environment? In what ways do they benefit?
  • What types of students are most challenged by the environment? In what ways are they challenged?
  • What qualities of MOOCs encourage writing students to enroll?
  • Why do some students persist and others drop out?
  • What measures, if any at all, would encourage greater retention?
• Regarding the written products that students develop from learning in a MOOC:
  • In what ways, if any, is peer review supportive of a student’s writing development in a MOOC?
  • In what ways, if any, would such students benefit from experienced writers’ (e.g., teaching assistants, teachers, and professional writers) review and response in a MOOC?
  • How, if at all, should student writing be evaluated for course credit when the student has completed a writing MOOC?

The rapid expansion of such technologies and trends as those listed above and the growing sphere of instructors who engage in digitally enhanced and Internet-based education are evidence that online education in general and OWI specifically are becoming significant within the higher education landscape (Ehmann, 2012; Krause & Lowe, 2014; see also Chapter 18). Although actual technologies, formats, and procedures may change, the Internet has transformed education and the teaching of writing in meaningful ways. Within this exciting context of change and transformation, however, few individuals have investigated the outcomes, processes, and procedures of online teaching and learning in rigorous and empirical ways. This reality also holds true for OWI specifically. Indeed, the empirically based learning science surrounding online writing contexts has a long way to go before replicable results yield convincing learning theories in connection with writing.

Certainly, the understanding has developed that digitally enhanced or hosted writing instruction is not a replacement for onsite courses but rather a complement to them. Educators have begun to recognize that providing writing instruction in multiple modalities supports writing instruction rather than limits it (Hewett, 2010, 2015a, 2015b; Snart, 2010; Warnock, 2009), making OWI a substantial tool in a large toolbox that we use to make learning more accessible to a more diverse population of learners throughout the world, with some students benefiting from online learning and writing instruction more than others (Hewett & Ehmann, 2004). Nonetheless, even the anecdotal literature that exists often avoids the question of what really works and why.

Many experts have discussed the need to understand more deeply the various pedagogies related to OWI. As seen in the CCCC OWI Committee’s Annotated Bibliography on Online Writing Instruction (2008) that gathered, reviewed, and annotated Web texts, articles, and books from 1980 to 2008, still much about what we know of OWI, what those processes look like, how students learn, and how teachers teach in the online writing environment is not comprehensive and does not account fully for the intricacies or complexities of participants and contexts (CCCC OWI Committee, 2008). Another annotated bibliography, “Studies Comparing Outcomes among Onsite, Hybrid and Fully Online Writing Courses” compiled by Scott Warnock (2013), studied the notion of difference between traditionally onsite and online (fully online and hybrid) composition courses. Warnock stated, “While generally few differences have been found in terms of educational outcome based on course modality, some studies identify nuanced differences in course experiences” (p. 2). Such nuances tend to affect retention and persistence as well as “student behaviors or performances in online courses in ways that lend themselves to comparison with onsite courses” (p. 2). Yet, such comparisons may be inappropriate for various reasons including that OWI often is scrutinized more than or differently from onsite writing courses, as Warnock indicates in Chapter 4.

Nonetheless, essential questions as to what distinguishes OWI from composition instruction and learning in onsite settings remain. Such distinctions, reported anecdotally and experientially by practitioners and researchers alike, strongly suggest that OWI may need its own theories unique to student cognition, teacher instruction, and affective dimensions of learning when working online (Hewett & Ehmann, 2004). The most obvious difference from onsite learning is in the affective realm from the loss of real-time body/face/voice connections where researchers have suggested that such loss interferes with developing classroom community (DePew & Lettner-Rust, 2009; Ehmann, 2010; Gouge, 2009). To some degree, these ideas are comprised of teacher impressions that require thoughtful research to test their veracity. On the other hand, in a few studies that questioned student experiences (see Warnock, 2013, for example), students have reported that their interactions with instructors and peers were similarly satisfactory when compared to those in onsite settings and that their satisfaction was connected in part from frequency of interactions and prompt feedback from instructors (Boyd, 2008; Johnson & Card, 2008). These issues would benefit from additional research. In particular, affective loss, student progress and retention, and the notion of leveling classroom power would be useful topics for further research.

Beyond concerns of affective connection, Beth L. Hewett (2010, 2015b) theorized in The Online Writing Conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors that OWI requires an increased clarity of written language, what she calls semantic integrity—response to students that recognizes fidelity between what teachers and tutors say in their writing and what they mean. This fidelity enables instructors to express themselves with clear intention and students to interpret their intentions as accurately as possible. Semantic integrity involves using straightforward language that is linguistically direct rather than indirect or suggestive and avoiding such conditional language as rhetorical questions and yes/no closed questions. In Reading to Learn and Writing to Teach: Literacy Strategies for Online Writing Instruction, Hewett (2015a) theorized that the decreased connection of body/face/voice in OWI reflects most strongly in lost cognition. When writing is taught primarily through reading and writing, an increased literacy load (Griffin & Minter, 2013)—where reading and writing are text-heavy and text-rich—taxes students who must make cognitive connections among what they read about writing generally, their writing specifically, and how to apply that information to their own writing-in-progress. Such reading challenges students, but it also challenges teachers who must understand that they are responsible for writing comprehensible instructional text that is straightforward and clear, leading directly back to a need for semantic integrity (Hewett, 2010, 2013, 2015a, 2015b). Indeed, according to David Alan Sapp and James Simon (2005), “Though many writing teachers may have the skills to communicate content and assignment instructions to students online, few have the sophisticated communication skills necessary to connect with students interpersonally, to build trust and rapport in unfamiliar virtual environments” (p. 478). Hewett’s (2015a) literacy-cognition theory of OWI requires additional research both for confirmation and mitigation of its effects on students with various learning needs and styles.

Although composition theories and some teaching strategies can be migrated and adapted to online settings as described in OWI Principle 4 (also see Warnock, 2009), institutional writing programs cannot simply move or transfer traditional educational methods online in a wholesale manner (pp. 14-15). Rather, new techniques and pedagogies unique to digital environments must be discerned and employed, as revealed in OWI Principle 3, to address the heavily text-based nature of OWI and the myriad of technological devices available for educational uses (pp. 12-14). However, what educators believe are the best online teaching strategies are not always the best learning strategies for students, which means that research must address that aspect of OWI as well. As described in the Introduction, the CCCC OWI Committee’s weakest area of research in terms of its field visits, surveys, and work with the expert/stakeholder panel was in its consideration of student learning experiences. The discipline needs to step back and understand what works for students and then consider how to marry that with overall pedagogical approaches—particularly given students’ accessibility needs. Depending on local institutional constraints, that marriage may look different within and across various contexts.

With these points in mind, there is a strong need for open-ended research into overarching areas of interest surrounding OWI as it occurs in naturalistic settings across institutions and student and teacher cohorts. To be sure, close-ended, tightly controlled experimental studies that, for example, test pre-determined theories or hypotheses about such issues as how students learn in this environment can serve an important role and can address various research questions about quantitative benefits and measurable outcomes (Ehmann, 2003). These we recommend as well. From a pedagogically driven perspective and in light of the current landscape of OWI knowledge, however, we believe strongly that more interpretive open-ended research should be a leading priority in any study of OWI. Given existing questions about participant experiences and OWI processes, therefore, a primary need is to explore the phenomenon of OWI—with individual cases across various institutions and learning contexts being viewed as opportunities to investigate overall trends and patterns that can lead to a deeper understanding of OWI as a phenomenon in and of itself. Based on previous exploratory research, compelling areas for empirical, theory-generating research are related to literacy and cognition, processes, participant perceptions and experiences, and outcomes. Because much of OWI is text-based, scholars are well positioned to delve into archives of teacher and learner work to explore short-term/one-off moments as well as longitudinal evidence of learning. In addition to deepening our understanding of the literacy and cognition challenges of OWI and pedagogical inner-workings and processes of OWI, it is essential that student outcomes also are assessed. Outcomes include student grades and other performance measures, course retention, and persistence. Although the analysis of such outcomes in relation to student achievement and learning has its pitfalls, it is undeniable that such information is useful as a baseline for both faculty and administrators who require such data as a means of quantitative efficacy.

This background strongly suggests that program and course design should be developed to allow such information to be captured and analyzed. Within an interpretative framework, both qualitative and quantitative methodological designs can be employed to address key questions surrounding OWI and OWL outcomes, processes, and participant perspectives. These areas will be discussed in the next sections of this chapter with particular focus on how they relate to planning for a postsecondary program that includes OWI and designing an OWI course; however, readers may adapt these discussions particularly to OWLs where the focus seems relevant.

Perspectives for OWI Research

As indicated in the previous section, the urgent call for OWI educators in assessing their current courses/programs and in contemplating the outlook of future development is, minimally, fourfold:

• Establishing opportunities within courses to investigate the phenomenon of OWI through an interpretive, process-oriented research framework;
• Using the analytic data available through LMSs to study students’ assistive technology use and learning patterns;
• Establishing opportunities to collect and study a baseline of performance-related student outcomes that can be analyzed by internal and external third parties; and
• Establishing opportunities to collect and study instructional strategies pertinent to both composition and the OWI-environment that also can be analyzed internally and externally for quality measures.

This need for research is highlighted in OWI Principle 15 of A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for OWI (p. 31). Specifically, the CCCC OWI Committee’s statement reported on a common theme from leaders in the field about the need for professional development in the area of OWI and OWLs. The CCCC OWI Committee expressed a pressing need to “educate the writing community on OWI and OWLs and to help direct the teaching and learning of our students with what is known about state of the art and effective practices” (p. 31). Moreover, the statement called for developments in OWI and OWLs to be rooted in “valid and reliable research findings and systematic information dissemination” (p. 31). In other words, of paramount importance is the knowledge sharing that occurs pre-, mid-, and post-research.

As in other contexts, the challenge for undertaking the type of aforementioned research resides in the time and funding resources for accomplishing such work. For an obvious example, student writing appropriately is one measure of any writing program’s efficacy. Studying that writing, however, is time and labor intensive. With that in mind, some computer programs or automated writing evaluation (AWE, a term that appears to have been coined by Warschauer and Paige [2006]) tools potentially may be used for research purposes to determine writing differences by, for example, indicating linguistic changes across drafts and revisions—provided the AWE tool is adequately trained and normed to specific prompts informed by human-directed parameters of strong and weak writing. At this time, such AWE programs typically cannot accurately synthesize within individual contexts (i.e., for individual students and their unique essay writing) whether and how those changes represent an individual’s specific rhetorical strengths and weaknesses, content accuracy and depth, and overall writing maturity (NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring, 2013; Perelman, 2013). Indeed, this work requires trained human instructors and readers. Given the need to balance the requirements of human expertise with the time and resources necessary for research into OWI, it is worth considering how markers of writing change may be quantitatively assessed via AWE technology in conjunction with human efforts related to the qualitative understanding, teaching, and assessment of writing.

To be sure, there is much controversy surrounding the use of AWE for placement, assessment, and instruction—let alone as a potential analysis tool to aid research of OWI. Earlier critiques of AWE have (1) typically focused on scoring rather than integration of AWE into the writing classroom and (2) relied more on composition theory than on empirical classroom studies of AWE’s impact on student learning (Ericsson & Haswell, 2006; Grimes & Warshauer, 2006; Shermis, Burstein, & Bliss, 2004). More recent studies have investigated the impact of AWE on student scores on standardized tests, teachers’ impressions of AWE, student impressions of AWE, impact on student writing, and student behavior as they use AWE applications (Chen & Cheng, 2008; Cotos, 2011; Grimes & Warshauer, 2010; Holman, 2011; Perelman, 2013; Schroder, Grohe, & Pogue, 2008; Shermis & Burstein, 2013; Shermis & Hammer, 2013). The point we wish to make here is that whether or not AWE is positioned as an optimal instructional or evaluative tool for complex and unique writing challenges and development issues that individual learners face, it may be leveraged for research into OWI if done with its strengths and limitations in mind. These items certainly warrant further consideration.

The human labor involved in OWI research requires training, developed experience, allotted time, and funding, all of which have been an impediment to OWI and other writing researchers who typically are not expected, encouraged, or educated to seek grants for such research. Indeed, writing studies scholars—whether focused on onsite or OWI—often are not prepared for such research generally. And, when it is developed, venues for publishing it can be scarce.

In 2005, Richard Haswell’s “NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship” cogently argued for RAD research in composition studies. His argument for empirical research in the field serves as a counterpoint to Stephen M. North’s (1987) popular and helpful The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field—in that the field no longer is emerging and that assumptions drawn from research ought to be validated and, to some degree, comparable across studies. Janice M. Lauer and J. William Asher’s (1988) Composition Research: Empirical Designs provided solid advice toward RAD research, but Haswell (2005) speculated that because the key NCTE/CCCC journals for the writing studies field (e.g., College English and College Composition and Communication) failed to publish sufficient RAD research, it discouraged publishing scholars from conducting it. To the field’s benefit, some scholars have taken up Haswell’s call to action with powerful critiques of current non-RAD research and practices based on it; Rebecca Day Babcock and Terese Thonus’ (2012) Researching the Writing Center: Toward an Evidence-based Practice comprises one such critique. In support of OWI, a few scholars have taken up such research (Hewett, 2000, 2004-2005, 2006; Jones, Georghiades, & Gunson, 2012; Wolfe & Griffin, 2013), which has helped to ground practice-based OWI development. Nonetheless, few researchers actually have replicated previous studies—using prior research methods, taxonomies, or other analytical tools—allowing the research to become part of a growing body of knowledge where comparisons might be made. Hewett (1998, 2000), where previously used methods and taxonomies were adapted to a new setting (2003-2005, 2006), provided one example of an attempt at RAD research based on earlier used talk and revision taxonomies (Faigley & Witte, 1981; Gere & Abbott, 1985, Gere & Stevens, 1985).

RAD research into OWI presents considerable challenges that we are not dismissing in this chapter. However, given these challenges, a strong case can be made to apply an action research approach to the overall study of OWI—such that educators can leverage their own practices as scholarly investigation. Grounded in an action research approach that is designed to ask educators to investigate, reflect, and report on their own practices, the CCCC OWI Committee’s explication of this research-focused principle encouraged practitioners to research their own courses, students, and programs (also see Hewett, 2010, 2015b; Hewett & Ehmann, 2004). As co-creators and/or participant observers, OWI and OWL administrators and teachers/tutors alike are situated ideally to commit to continuous research of their courses, students, and programs—with the overall intention of building and strengthening the theoretical and pedagogical frameworks for OWI and OWLs. Pepperdine University’s Center for Collaborative Action Research advocated a similar version of action research. They explained that action research:

is the systematic, reflective study of one’s actions, and the effects of these actions, in a workplace context. As such, it involves deep inquiry into one’s professional practice... . Action research is a way of learning from and through one’s practice by working through a series of reflective stages that facilitate the development of a form of “adaptive” expertise. Over time, action researchers develop a deep understanding of the ways in which a variety of social and environmental forces interact to create complex patterns. Since these forces are dynamic, action research is a process of living one’s theory into practice. (Reil, 2010)

As emphasized in OWI Principle 15 of A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for OWI, “Empirical, repeatable, and longitudinal research that addresses questions regarding the phenomena of OWI and OWLs will drive a deeper understanding of OWI and OWLs, ultimately benefiting students and the teaching and learning of writing in online contexts” (p. 31). Similarly, follow-up reporting and information dissemination are important phases in the strategy of “progressive inquiry” (Reil, 2010) for action research. The intention is for research findings to be critiqued and validated by peers as well as the scholarly community and administrators in composition studies. As the CCCC OWI Committee’s A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for OWI advocated under OWI Principle 15:

OWI and OWL administrators and teachers/tutors should engage actively in the scholarly conversation by sharing research findings at regional and national conferences and through peer-reviewed journals and other academic publications. OWI and OWL administrators and teachers/tutors should share research findings with the general public in suitable venues to assist with setting appropriate expectations for and understanding of OWI and OWLs. (p. 31)

Perhaps most importantly, such research can be used to inform and ultimately improve one’s own practice within a cyclical, phased approach.

As indicated earlier in this chapter, there are numerous main areas that, in light of the current state of knowledge about OWI, can be considered research priorities. For the purposes of this chapter, we categorize these priorities into three overarching areas pertinent to OWI/OWLs: processes and interactions, participant perceptions and experiences, and outcomes. Although a myriad of potential research topics related to these broad areas exist, the point here is to highlight examples of research questions and methodological choices that can serve to deepen understanding and knowledge of processes, participant experiences, and outcomes of OWI for both teaching and tutoring practices.

Recommendations

This section of the chapter summarizes key points and recommendations for designing an appropriate research strategy for OWI, which includes the uses of OWLs.

Table 17.1 provides a sample research memo that can be adapted to gain institutional, administrator, and faculty support and resources for the endeavor. It may be used as well to encourage buy-in for a course/OWL design that can accommodate on-going research.

Table 17.1: Example research proposal memo for OWI

Table 17.2 (Ehmann, 2013) further summarizes research strategy options and illustrates: key relationships between dependent and explanatory variables, an array of possible data collection methods with corresponding analysis techniques for quantitative and qualitative data, and final reporting and action steps. It succinctly encapsulates research options, and it can be used as a starting point for discussion with various audiences.

Table 17.2: OWI in fully-online and hybrid contexts (Ehmann, 2013)

The ultimate credibility of any research will rely on the goals, justifications, articulated limitations, and overall transparency of the projects. Addressing the following areas can serve to provide such credibility in the dissemination of research findings:

• A plan for researching OWI
• Research questions
• Overall research strategy
• Choice of research instruments
• Role of researcher
• Ethical considerations
• Selecting the sample
• Conduct of and lessons learned during piloting
• Data collection
• Conduct of the interviews and/or surveys, if used
• Analysis of the interactions
• Analysis of the interview data
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Recommendations for additional research

Conclusion

Rhetoric and composition educators understand the need for OWI research and evidence that supports OWI teaching and learning strategies. As indicated, there are many areas open for research where scholars and practitioners can contribute to the knowledge of this field. Among such areas are:

• Outcomes on quantitatively measurable OWI student gains (e.g., grades, course retention, and sequence persistence) to justify overall course success to, for example, administrators and institutional leadership for funding purpose, and
• The more qualitatively, interpretative, theory-generating work needed to understand the success and value of various strategies, techniques, and pedagogies associated with OWI.

A significant challenge exists in meeting both ends of this research spectrum. This chapter has outlined strategic investigative approaches and methodologies that can address quantitatively as well as qualitatively focused questions within an action research paradigm. When planning for a postsecondary program that includes OWI and designing an OWI course or that involves the intricacies of tutoring in an OWL, these recommendations can incorporate and ultimately be used to strengthen and fortify the teaching of writing and student learning in online and onsite settings alike.

References

Aslanian, Carol B. & Clinefelter, David L. (2012). Online college students 2012: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Retrieved from www.learninghouse.com/files/documents/resources/Online%20College%20Students%202012.pdf

Boston, Wallace E., Ice, Phil, & Gibson, Angela (2011). Comprehensive assessment of student retention in online learning environments. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring141/boston_ice_gibson141.pdf

Boyd, Patricia Webb. (2008). Analyzing students’ perceptions of their learning in online and hybrid first-year composition courses. Computers and Composition, 25, 224-243.

CCCC OWI Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2008). Annotated bibliography on online writing instruction 1980-2008. Committee for Best Practices on Online Writing Instruction (Keith Gibson & Beth L. Hewett, Eds.). Retrieved from www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/Committees/OWIAnnotatedBib.pdf

CCCC OWI Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2011a). Fully online distance-based courses survey results. Retrieved from http://s.zoomerang.com/sr.aspx?sm=EAupi15gkwWur6G7egRSXUw8kpNMu1f5gjUp01aogtY%3d

CCCC OWI Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2011b). Hybrid/blended course survey results. Retrieved from http://s.zoomerang.com/sr.aspx?sm=%2fPsFeeRDwfznaIyyz4sV0qxkkh5Ry7O1NdnGHCxIBD4%3d

CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2011c). The state of the art of OWI. Retrieved from www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/Committees/OWI_State-of-Art_Report_April_2011.pdf

CCCC OWI Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2013). A position statement of principles and effective practices for online writing instruction (OWI). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/p.../owiprinciples

Chen, Chi-Fen Emily & Cheng, Wei-Yuan Eugene. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology 12(2), 94-112.

Cormier, Dave. (2010). What is a MOOC? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc

Cotos, Elena. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 420-459.

CourseSmart & Wakefield Research. (2012). CourseSmart survey. Retrieved from http://www.coursesmart.com/media#pr10

DePew, Kevin Eric & Lettner-Rust, Heather. (2009). Mediating power: Distance learning interfaces, classroom epistemology, and the gaze. Computers and Composition, 26, 174–189.

Ehmann, Christa. (2003). A study of peer tutoring in higher education (Doctoral thesis, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK).

Ehmann, Christa. (2010). A study of online writing instructor perceptions. In Beth L. Hewett (Ed.), The online writing conference: A guide for teachers and tutors (pp. 163-171). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ehmann, Christa (2012, December). Online teaching and learning: Past, present, and future. Conference on e-Learning & e-Libraries Wellington College, UK.

Ehmann, Christa (2013). OWI in fully-online & hybrid contexts [Chart]

Ericsson, Patricia. F. & Haswell, Richard. (Eds.). (2006). Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Faigley, Lester & Witte, Stephen. (1981). Analyzing revision. Computers and Composition, 32(4), 400-414.

Fife, Jane Mathison & O’Neill, Peggy. (2001). Moving beyond the written comment: Narrowing the gap between response practice and research. College Composition and Communication, 53(2), 300-321.

Gere, Ann Ruggles & Abbott, Robert D. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of Writing, 19(4), 362-381.

Gere, Ann Ruggles & Ralph S. Stevens. (1985). The language of writing groups: How oral response shapes revision. In Sarah Warshaur Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 85-105). NJ: Ablex.

Gouge, Catherine. (2009). Conversation at a crucial moment: Hybrid courses and the future of writing programs. College English, 71(4), 338-362.

Griffin, June & Minter, Deborah. (2013). The rise of the online writing classroom: Reflecting on the material conditions of college composition teaching. College Composition and Communication, 65(1), 140-161.

Grimes, Douglas & Warschauer, Mark. (2006, April). Automated essay scoring in the classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Grimes, Douglas & Warschauer, Mark. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1625/1469

Hewett, Beth L. (1998). The characteristics and effects of oral and computer-mediated peer group talk on the argumentative writing process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.defendandpublish.com/Diss_Characteristics.pdf

Hewett, Beth L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers & Composition, 17, 265-288.

Hewett, Beth L. (2001). Generating new theory for online writing instruction. Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 6.2. Retrieved from english.ttu.edu/kairos/6.2/index.html

Hewett, Beth L. (2004-2005). Asynchronous online instructional commentary: A study of student revision. Readerly/Writerly Texts: Essays in Literary, Composition, and Pedagogical Theory (Double Issue), 11 & 12(1 & 2), 47-67.

Hewett, Beth L. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 4-31.

Hewett, Beth L. (2010). The online writing conference: A guide for teachers and tutors. Portsmouth, NH, Boynton/Cook.

Hewett, Beth L. (2013). Fully online and hybrid writing instruction. In Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper Taggart, Kurt Schick, & H. Brooke Hessler (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (2nd ed.) (pp. 194-211). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hewett, Beth L. (2015a). Reading to learn and writing to teach: Literacy strategies for online writing instruction. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

Hewett, Beth L. (2015b). The online writing conference: A guide for teachers and tutors (Updated). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

Hewett, Beth L. & Ehmann, Christa. (2004). Preparing educators for online writing instruction. Urbana, IL, National Council of Teachers of English.

HMHEducation.com (2012). Results of a year-long algebra pilot in Riverside, California. Retrieved from www.hmheducation.com/fuse/pdf/hmh-fuse-riverside-whitepaper.pdf

Holman, Lester Donnie. (2011). Automated writing evaluation program’s effect on student writing achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (913400137)

Johnson, E. Janet & Card, Karen. (2008). The effects of instructor and student immediacy behaviors in writing improvement and course satisfaction in a Web-based undergraduate course. MountainRise, 04(2). Retrieved from http://mountainrise.wcu.edu/index.php/MtnRise/article/view/81/36

Kessler, Sarah. (2012). Why the iPad won’t transform education just yet. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/tech/innovation/ipad-wont-transform-education/index.html Mashable.com

Koller, Daphne. (2012, June). What we’re learning from online education. [Talk presented at the TEDGlobal 2012, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education.html

Krause, Steven D. & Lowe, Charles (Eds.). (2014). Invasion of the MOOCs: The perils and promises of massive open online courses. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Marquis, Justin W. & Rivas, K. (2012, June 26). Eight nations leading the way in online education [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/06/8-nations-leading-way-online-education/

Meloncon, Lisa. (Ed.). (2013). Rhetorical access-ability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

McGrath, Laura. (2008). In their own voices: Online writing instructors speak out on issues of preparation, development, & support. Computers and Composition Online (Spring). Retrieved from www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/OWIPDS/index.html

NCTE Task Force on Writing Assessment. (2013). Machine scoring fails the test. NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/machine_scoring

Oswal, Sushil K. & Hewett, Beth L. (2013). Accessibility challenges for visually impaired students and their OWI teachers. In Lisa Meloncon (Ed.), Rhetorical access-ability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies (pp. 135-156). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

Parker, Kim, Lenhard, Amanda, & Moore, Kathleen. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education. Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/08/online-learning.pdf

Pearson Foundation. (2011). Survey on students and tablets. Retrieved from www.pearsonfoundation.org/downloads/PF_Tablet_Survey_Summary.pdf

Perelman, Les C. (2013). Critique of Mark D. Shermis & Ben Hammer, “Contrasting state-of-the-art automated scoring of essays: Analysis.” Journal of Writing Assessment, 6. Retrieved from http://www.journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=69

Radford, Alexandria W. (2011). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012154.pdf

Reil, Margaret (2010). Understanding action research. University of Pepperdine, Center for Collaborative Action Research. Retrieved from http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Sapp, David Alan & Simon, James. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition, 22(4), 471-489.

Schroeder, Julie, Grohe, Bonnie, & Pogue, Rene. (2008). The impact of criterion writing evaluation technology on criminal justice student writing skills. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 19(8), 432–445.

Shermis, Mark D., Burstein, Jill. C., & Bliss, Larry. (2004, April). The impact of automated essay scoring on high stakes writing assessments. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.

Shermis, Mark D. & Burstein, Jill C. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. New York: Routledge.

Thonus, Terese & Hewett, Beth L. (2015). Follow this path: Conceptual metaphors in writing center online consultations. Manuscript in preparation.